Your kind of warrior

So I've been watching the Warrior show lately, where they compare historic warriors and see how they would match up on in a fight using computer analysis. They get so in-depth, with all the flash videos, weapons, etc. It makes me wonder, "what kind of warrior would I want to be if I had the chance!?". If I could go back in time and start life out fresh in any society of my choosing, I'd have to go with the Roman gladiator, or the Scottish Highlanders. None of this daily "precision" shit or boring lifestyle. They lived it up and fought it up, and ate good too. And I love my food.

I've also been intrigued by Medievel knights myself. I could definitely see myself weilding a battle ax on a battlefield no bigger than a football arena. And I agree, I remember watching the movie "Jarhead" and one of the comments they made was:

"In World War II it would take Weeks maybe months to move a kilometer, in Korea & Vietnam it would take Hours.... Our war (Desert Storm) it takes 10 seconds. We're breaking our backs digging these foxholes and when we're done the fight is going to be gone, done, finished before we ever even look up."

I do agree that that is a great point. Although I'm sure it still exists on some fronts, the age of Military standoffs and stalemates most likely doesnt exist anymore. And I dont see the Pride in that to be honest.

I had never heard of this program so done a little digging, I have not seen a full episode but have clips of some of the fights and looks pretty interesting.

As for what kind of warroir I would choose I am torn between two from different ands of the spectrum.
The Samurai, a fantastic warrior when needed, but not sure I could handle all the pomp and tradition that went with it.

The celtic warrior, those guys loved a good fight and the last thing on there mind was tradition.

Warriors suck. Leave the fighting to soldiers. And yes, there are some differences - warriors fight "alone" (or thats the ideal at least, ignoring the peasant levies normally also involved) and are all about "honour". Soldiers fight in formations and are all about discipline and tactics.

Warriors suck. Leave the fighting to soldiers. And yes, there are some differences - warriors fight "alone" (or thats the ideal at least, ignoring the peasant levies normally also involved) and are all about "honour". Soldiers fight in formations and are all about discipline and tactics.

Click to expand...

Spartans fought in formations and Indian tribes fought in groups; both were considered warriors.

Deadliest Warrior is a fantastic show and that guy from 300 narrates! I'd like to be a Shaoiln Monk; their discipline is amazing and they have such interesting weapons - the hooked swords has to be the best.